Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 14, page 11 (line 5), after "that you", insert "acquired after the commencement of this section and that you".

(2) Schedule 1, item 14, page 11 (line 7), after "superannuation interest", insert "acquired after the commencement of this section".

Like everyone, I was pleased to see that the government bowed to coalition pressure to remove the unrealised gains measure in this bill, along with introducing indexing of the $3 million threshold. Australians rightly raised serious concerns about the proposal to tax unrealised gains—in other words, taxing people on money before it was even earned.

The title of this bill speaks of a stronger and fairer super system, but the key questions Australians will ask is: what exactly is fair about changing the rules after people have already made long-term decisions based on the rules that existed at the time? Australians plan their financial futures over decades. They work hard, save diligently and structure their retirement based on the frameworks set by the government. When governments change those rules after the fact, it undermines confidence in the system. Let me be clear about one thing. Most Australians will never have $3 million in superannuation. Sadly, that includes me. That is not really the point of this debate. The point is whether Australians can trust that the rules they plan their lives around will remain stable. Stability creates certainty for investors which inspires confidence. Ask any fair dinkum Australian how fair it is to move the goal posts after people have structured their entire financial future under one set of rules only to have those rules changed later on. We have a bill here that penalises hard-working and aspirational Australians—farmers, small-business owners and others who have worked for decades to build their retirement savings. Many of these people have made financial decisions—

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry to interrupt the member. There's far too much noise. The conversation level is too high. I ask people that, if they want to have conversations, to leave the chamber, or sit quietly and listen to the member for Longman.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

based on the rules that existed at the time. For some, those goal posts have been shifted right as they approach retirement.

Another concern is the precedent this sets. If a government begins changing the rules after people already have made long-term financial decisions, it creates uncertainty across an entire system. Today it might be superannuation. Tomorrow it could be investment properties. One day it could even be the family home. If we're going to change the goal posts for people during their working career, then maybe we should change the rules for members in this place elected before 2004 on the defined benefit scheme. If it's about fairness, this shouldn't happen, but, if it's about revenue raising and saving taxpayers money, then it should be done even though it would be unfair to those affected. Australians expect that when they make decisions set by government that those rules will not be simply changed after the fact. Regardless of the amounts involved the principle must remain. The government should not change the rules halfway through the game.

There are also economic consequences to consider. If people believe the rules around superannuation can be changed at any time, confidence in the system will erode. Many will choose to move their money elsewhere, including offshore, rather than invest in super. If that occurs the policy may well have the opposite effect to what it intended to achieve which is higher tax revenue created by a higher tax rate percentage. If investment shrinks the net result will be worse. A higher percentage of a lower number is worse, not a better outcome. Last time I checked, 40 per cent of zero is zero.

If we are talking about fairness, then fairness must apply in practice. That is why I've moved this amendment. My amendment will simply ensure that existing superannuation balances are grandfathered. Australians who make long-term financial decisions under the current rules will not have those rules changed on them retrospectively. Under my amendment, the legislation would apply only to new superannuation arrangements created after the law comes into effect.

This amendment is a litmus test on whether this legislation is actually about fairness or whether it's simply a revenue grab to repair the economic damage created by this government. If the legislation is really about fairness, then protecting those who made decisions under existing rules should not be controversial and my amendment would be agreed to. If, however, this measure is simply about raising additional revenue, then this amendment will not pass. Sadly, I suspect it'll be the latter because at its core this proposal is not really about fairness at all. It's about raising revenue to deal with the consequences of out-of-control government spending.

I note that this amendment does not remove the suggested low-income superannuation tax offset which I, of course, support as anything that assists low-income workers in this cost-of-living crisis is welcome even though they will not see the benefits now when it is needed but in the years to come. Anyone who votes against this amendment will show by doing so that this bill is not really about fairness and is instead about revenue raising. Australians expect fairness. They expect stability in the rules that government their financial future. I therefore commend this amendment to the House.

Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government opposes the proposed amendment. The legislation is about making the superannuation system fairer from top to bottom. The amendment would effectively mean that pre-existing interests would not be subject to the policy, which is inconsistent with the policy intent. This bill is already designed to apply only to future earnings, including by providing capital gains tax adjustments for APRA funds and self-managed super funds, or SMSFs, for pre-commencement capital gains. This is just another attempt by the opposition to undermine a stronger and fairer superannuation system.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the amendments moved by the honourable member for Longman be agreed to.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 14, page 8 (after line 19), after section 296-25, insert:

296-26 Exemption — one-off amnesty

If your superannuation balance for the 2026-27 income year exceeds the *large superannuation balance threshold and you are in the accumulation phase, you may make a one-off withdrawal from the account up to the *large superannuation balance threshold.

I want to acknowledge the government's piece of legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, which I support. I particularly want to acknowledge the changes to the legislation which I think have made it a very positive piece of legislation that is appropriately addressing intergenerational inequity at the same time as being, on balance, fair to existing super holders. However, in the current piece of legislation, there are people with high balances who are under 60, so they cannot remove their super from their current accounts. I think that is of concern.

The great challenge of changing super laws is that the money is locked up. You can't touch it unless you're at least over 60 and retired. If you made decisions based on previous conditions in terms of a tax statement and then it is changed materially, I think it is fair to give people the chance to say: 'I wouldn't have made that decision. I'd like to now withdraw these funds.' It doesn't affect a lot of people, but I think, on principle, giving people that choice is important. I do think it's worth noting that the government has doubled the tax rate, and in some cases it has gone from 15 per cent to 40 per cent. That is a material change in the taxation arrangements of superannuation with these high balances. I think that it is appropriate in that case to offer options for removing this.

I know that the government has in previous conversations with the Assistant Treasurer noted that there may be constitutional issues in relation to pensions. My question to the government then would be: were there any other options considered for people who might be in their 30s, their 40s or their 50s who would like to take this money out of super because they no longer see the benefit of having it in that arrangement? Were other options that would have been appropriate considered in the legislation? I think it's not an unreasonable request that, if your money is locked up for perhaps 10 or 20 years and the rules for it substantially change, you have a chance to remove that money and deploy it as you wish elsewhere.

Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government opposes the proposed amendment. I'm advised by my department that the amendment would raise significant constitutional issues, as it seeks to introduce a new condition of release before retirement, allowing withdrawals for amounts exceeding the large-balance cap. Such a condition of release would be inconsistent with the constitutional support for the Commonwealth regulation of superannuation, as the condition of release would compel or authorise a trustee to provide benefits unconnected with purposes for superannuation regulation. Importantly, the proposed reforms will maintain concessional tax treatment of superannuation for all individuals but make the concessions more sustainable. These are sensible, important reforms that will mean super tax concessions are better targeted for large balances.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much for the response from the government on this. Really, my question to the government is: did you consider options—because it isn't an unreasonable request. I support the principle of where the government is going on this, and I support the legislation. But, if you take someone's tax rate from 15 per cent to 40 per cent and they cannot touch that money perhaps for a decade or more, it's not unreasonable to ask: in the legislation, could you have looked for ways to give options, at least, to the people who are affected by this?

Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate to the House that the government undertook extensive consultation over a long period of time—multiple rounds of consultation with many stakeholders across the industry and experts—and we believe that the design of this bill best reflects all of that consultation in achieving the outlined policy goals.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.